The "Unpower" of Prayer

Of the myriad of seemingly irrational rituals touted by religions worldwide, none hold such unquestioning reverence as the power of prayer. Both the religious and nonreligious view this otherwise schizophrenic habit of speaking to an unseen, unknown persona, as a source of comfort to millions. It calms the prayer and brings relief and comfort to the burdened and lonely.

I, too, once fell prey to the innocuous act. Previous transgressions and injustices on others overwhelmed me with guilt, and without obvious recourse, I went out onto a silent, snow laden balcony late one night. Bowing my head, I mentally listed all the things I had done wrong and asked for forgiveness.

Did this make me feel better? Yes. Should I have felt better? No. Because it certainly did not make the people I hurt feel better.

And therein lies the problem. Once feeling unburdened, I took no other action to help heal old wounds. Am I the only one to take advantage of the 'get out of jail free' card? I suspect not. In fact, the very principle that the sole act of asking for forgiveness will pardon your sins, means that corrupt individuals can do evil and still feel okay about it.

And what's worse is they don't even have to be accountable for their actions, as long as they are "okay with God."

The other problem with prayer is that it doesn't actually do anything (except for maybe a mild placebo affect) but people are convinced that it will. And of course they would think so, for the bible tells them so:

1 John 5:14-15 says, "This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of Him."

What does this mean? It means that instead of working their way out poverty, millions of people are told just to pray for it.

In fact, many of the religious, praying figures sent to the poorest of the poor make matters worse by condoning practices that are certain to keep them poor.

Christopher Hitchens, in his article Mommie Dearest:The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud found in Slate Magazine says,

"MT [Mother Teresa} was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."

But what about the comfort of the people, you ask? They've been dealt a hard hand in life, shouldn't they be offered a little relief? Can't they have the numbing power of prayer?

I ask you this, how hard will you work if you think a prayer alone can achieve the same thing?

By commanding people to embrace their poverty, to pray their way out of it and wait for the dubious day when their faith will be rewarded, you are also calling people NOT to act to save themselves.

This doesn't just affect the poor today, but the generations that follow. Imagine instead of praying, parents taught their children about family planning, logic and hard work as a way to escape poverty. Think then of the comfort they would feel by freeing their children from the oppressive chains of dogma and to finally see their children succeed where they failed?

To put it bluntly, religion and prayer are like opiates (as Karl Marx once famously said). Just because something feels good and brings comfort, does not mean that it is good for you, your children, or those around you.

The Catholic Retreat

I applaud Pope Benedict XVI's recent success in relegating his archaic establishment to the history books where it belongs. His announcement last month regarding the acceptable use of condoms is welcomed turn around, and not only for the estimated 35 million people suffering from AIDS worldwide. It also marks another important step in the church's retreat from center stage to the bleachers.

While the Pope did attempt to reduce the impact by specifying the use of the-here-to evil contraceptive by male prostitutes only (as a "first step towards moralisation"), this turn about face did not go unnoticed.

The Economist cottoned on when it stated in its article "No kidding: A slight shift in position on condoms":

If its use is acceptable for a male prostitute, it would be harder to deny that a female one seeking to protect herself, or her clients, from disease should do likewise. (Indeed, the Vatican later clarified that female and even transsexual prostitutes were included.) But if so, then what about married couples where one partner is HIV positive? The pope’s arguments seem to open the door to Catholics choosing the lesser of two “evils”.

Would this be the first time the Catholic church has had to concede its once all powerful position in the face of social pressure, unavoidably facts and scientific proof? Not at all. One only has to think of Galileo. or the Spanish Inquisition. or Joan of Arc.

I know the next argument. People are fallible, they are the ones who make mistakes, not god or religion. But try telling that to the poor Catholic who fervently believes (as one of the major pillars of their religion) that the Pope has direct communication with God. In fact, the pope is Infallible, by dogma.

I ask only this: How human is it to slowly give in when backed into a corner? Why hasn't God rushed in to save this failing, flailing dinosaur of a religion?